"mediabuzz" is up next with howard kurtz. here's howie. >> martin bashir resince under pressure at msnbc saying he deeply regrets his disgusting comments about sarah palin. why did it take so long for the talk show host to pay a penalty. could he have kept his job if msnbc moved quickly to suspend him. president obama tries to boost his sagging fortunes by turning to chris matthews and msnbc. >> how do we get back to that confidence that we can solve our manmade problems and other problems? >> why was the host of hardball playing such softball? >> glenn greenwald who published

those secret nsa documents under fire who say he's profiteering from snowden's leaks. >> and cbs swoons over an idea that amazon some day may deliver your packages with drones. was that segment and infomercial for jeff bezos? i'm howard kurtz anthis is "mediabuzz." it was a mystery surrounding martin bashir after those vial comments how sarah palin deserves an old slave punishment as a toilet. >> when she invokes slavery she confirms that if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from thomas thirstlewood then she would be

the outstanding candidate. >> why did msnbc do nothing for nearly three weeks. but after meeting this week with the president, the british journalist said he's leaving the network. quote it is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues at this special network will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments. i deeply regret what was said and will endeavor network hard at making constructive comments. sarah palin praised the mainstream media. >> it's an immature and petty way to destroy someone. >> it was refreshing to see, though, that many in the media did come out and say, look, our standards have got to be higher than this. those with that platform, with a microphone, a camera in their face they have to have some more responsibility taken. >> so what will be the fall out from this episode?

should martin bashir have lost his job over these comments >> yes. it was appalling. it was gross. it took three weeks for the network and martin bashir to come to some sort of agreement. >> why did it take so long? >> they were negotiating a package, possibly seeing if, if the media would die down and the incident would go away and they could continue and acce the apology and his ability to make some constructive changes. but, the media as sarah palin said to its credit didn't do that. they did not let up. >> bashir did apologize and i wonder if msnbc can quickly suspended him and he's off the air for a month and then comes back and tries to make a clean start could he have kept his job. of at any time mishandling that was the problem?

>> maybe. i think that's a really good point. i don't think he should have been fired. i don't want to live in america where you can't state your opinion and make a mistake and apologize and move on. i want a place where if you're a bad talk show host like bashir's show of, you lose your job because of ratings because nobody is watching and it's a supply and demand issue. nobody wants what you're pitching. when you go back and look at the history of journalists who lost their jobs over remarks, i think it's a really sad commentary on where we are in america. >> i don't like it when anybody loses their job and we all make mistakes on camera and sometimes blurt things out. but it was skriptd with graphics and premeditated. what about a different standard when a conservative woman is the target. >> i said that in the past. there's rogerive women who said she was a victim.

you step up and criticize regardless of what your party affiliation is. i'll say in this instance, part of the real issue is in how this ended up being handled there seemed to be in some a double standard with the alec baldwin situation. >> he wagone immediately. >> quickly. i wrote which groups it's okay to targets versus which ones aren't. there were plenty of athletes and hollywood stars that have been known for beating up girlfriends but if you make a homophobic slur you lose your job quick. alec baldwin is very vocal about everything but very vocal -- >> you should be able to criticize andrew sullivan and not be homophobic. you should be able to criticize mitch mitch and not be sexist. >> he could have called her an idiot but he stepped over the line. you're talking about deif he indicating in someone's mouth. how is that okay? >> i'm not saying that's okay.

it's a terrible comment. all i'm saying is when you say a terrible comment you should be judged by whether or not your ratings are up or down and if you're not a good host get rid of you. >> again i'll split the difference. part of it is definitely how you handle it. there were a couple of columns written about how he survived and baldwin didn't because people thought he was going to survive is because he immediately apologized and apologized the right way. a lot of us have apology fatigue where somebody says something and the boss says we have to fire you if you don't apologize. he did seem to offer an apology. >> as far as the mainstream media, i think the outrage was selective. when bashir resigned "new york times" put that story on page b2. imagine if a fox host had resigned after making outrageous comments about hillary clinton would it have been in the b section >> no. it would be on the front page.

when you go after a conservative woman that's not the same outrage. we can't live in a society where there's only certain, you know, words or people if you go after that's crossed the lined and unacceptable. i want people to be judged on their show and whether or not it's a good show. we all make mistakes. we're all going to make makes. >> i'm with that. you make mistakes and i said last week you say you're sorry, and that's great. but in this case, rick, i can't help but think that it affected the show and it would affect his performance going forward. >> his show was bad all along. he's been saying terrible things all along. >> going back to five years ago when march shin bashir was suspended at abc to going an asian-american journalist comments and making comments on how they dressed. the ultimate question, takeaway question here is this going to affect the tone of other people

at msnbc and elsewhere in a cable culture that i would say encourages pretty hot talk. >> no and yes. no -- >> what are you saying >> there's two distinct arguments here. no, in that they are still going to continue to be bombastic. yes, you step ove imaginary line this is you're out. you won't be as much of an attack dog. >> let me move on to somebody who is an attack dog and that's chris matthews, president obama trying to bounce back a bit from the health care debacle, gave the host of "hardball" and exclusive interview this week. let's take a look. >> what's going to stop and arrest that decline of faith in you doing the right thing, you being honest and anybody who is president, this skepticism that's out tre >> look the cynicism and skepticism is b. >> mr. predent, your remarks on economic justice to me as a

roman catholic was so resonant what the holy father francis has been saying. >> i'm not going to ask you if chris matthews is playing hardball or softball. >> they muzzled the attack dog. what happened? chris is known forgoing after people. but for having solloliquoys. in this case he didn't do that. there was one question about his management style being top down or -- >> top down not enough in the health care. i thought that was a question. >> other than that he let him speak. >> it was chris matthews for seven years ago. chris matthews has been all about just being a rosie o'donnell talk show host.

he's not a journalist. he's rosie o'donnell with an opinion and that's all this is and that's what we should expect from him. >> i completely disagree. as someone who has done chris's show a few times. i'm not a liberal. >> you're on the left. >> no, we're not, actually. you haven't read any of my columns and definitely not in the last few weeks opinion. >> you changed in the last few weeks. >> in the last few weeks you haven't read my work. identify been on chris's show a few times and one thing that he's well-known for is, to your point, and if you're not there by third he'll cut you off and he starts a monolog. that what's people found surng. the president didn't give one monolog or, two but it was like macbeth long. >> the president took a breath and somebody could have jumped in and pressed him and i didn't see any of that. matthews played a clip from jfk

and asked the question how do we get back to the confidence of 1960s. he kept serving up a platform for the president to give mini speeches. >> if you're on the president's side you thought that was okay. allow him to speak and to talk about health care but to journalists it sounded like an infomercial. >> obama fans liked it? >> of course. >> was president's strategy to go over to msnbc where he had a couple of pundits is there was a home team interview >> it was going to be an easy interview. it was a total infomercial. the bigger issue -- >> i would have thought matthews to protect himself knowing people like us would be critiquing it. >> you assume he thinks of himself as a journalist. he's an entertainer with a couple of opinions. the bigger issue here is nbc has a huge problem with the msnbc hosts bleeding over into nbc.

it's becoming just opinionated on nbc. big problem. >> you don't watch chris's show. the reality is chris even if he agrees with them he cuts them off. >> i agree. >> even if he agrees with someone it's not the chris matthews i'm used to seeing. >> sends me a tweet about the show @howardkurtz. ahead an exclusive interview with glenn greenwald. the tale of amazon

it was a prime platform for

amazon founder jeff bezos and used his "60 minutes" moment to unveil something for charlie rose. >> there's and i temple going io a vehicle. i know this looks like science-fiction. it's not. this is years away. drops the package. come and get your package. we can do half hour delivery -- >> half hour delivery? >> the notion of drones making deliveries to your door step which even bezos admits is years away was quickly launched into the media stratosphere. >> an eye opener on "60 minutes." may zone is work on delivery drones that would drop-off goods from their warehouses no humans involved. >> on this cyber monday the world's largest retailer say it's testing a wild new way to deliver small packages to your home. >> we were talking about amaz

amazon's plan to deliver to new heights. >> it was unlievable. the commentary on the media. it's group think in the media. always see from reporters repeating and tweeting. this was the same story on every network in the same angle. no one was taking this opportunity to talk about this great technology or other companies that actually have similar technology. it was all amazon, the same story. it's 27-year-olds gathering the news and repeating it. >> there was some good newspaper stories raising some questions. but kou say this was a genius move by jeff bezoz since the whole media world got on it. >> yes, yes and yes. it was hooking all the holes. what about the birds. >> what about the birds.

>> tune in at 11:00. >> other than a couple of skeptical questions about amazon being a large force in the marketing world that's driving other companies out of business charlie rose seemed wow. >> de. i don't have a problem with actually interviewing jeff bezos. he's tough to get. i have a problem with how and when it happened. how it happened was that he was not asking the really tough questions and when it happened was sunday night before cyber monday. now everyone is thinking amazon. let's go on and buy amazon products. that's an issue. >> and, you know, as some stories later pointsed out and i understand that rose didn't know in advance what this was so he wouldn't have a whole list of ve detailed questions. the faa doesn't have any rules for this sort of thing and may not for a couple of years. there's privacy concerns and tech problems which raises fundamental questions about was "60 minutes" used? >> i don't think so.

it's amazing technology. it will change the face of the world. if it s abouting to rolled out it would be appropriate to ask hard asking questions. this is a sci-fi futuristic story. i have no problems with "60 minutes" doing the story. i have a probl with the roll out afterwards and everybody repeating the same thing. >> i have an issue of "60 minutes" doing it. everybody does entertainment. that's part of journalism. i'm not taking that away. but what i think when i think of "60 minutes" i think of hard hitting journalism and it's sort of the last bastion of that. >> was it too promotional >> yeah. >> it was a really cool video that everybody could play over and over again. so easy, you don't have to do a ton of research. i want that. what if it hits the mailman. >> the other thing that was interesting, those about this was the initial question was "60

minutes" used. you could argue they got a little use out of amazon. which don't recall the last one someone sent me a tweet and said let's talk about cbs. >> "60 minutes" got a huge rating that night, even larger than its usual big audience so maybe it was a win. >> hit the controversy with laura logan before that. that was not good for them. so now here all of a sudden right after that we got a great story from "60 minutes." >> i think we'll be waiting awhile for these drones. >> when we come back the passing of nelson mandela brings a tidal wave of tribute from the media. we'll look at how he's being remembered.

let'look at the front pages across the couny. he let his country it of the s apartheid. >> titan of the century has diet. >> for million whose loved him in 9 modern country he formed the hope and light the world. >> a moral hero for the ages, the greatest men of our time is dead tonight. >> i don't think there is any queen when people think of ice conic figures that transcend global understanding of freedom's struggle and inspire people no matter where they are from, no matter their race, their religion, nelson mandela's name will be among them.

>> he did not pretend to be 10 saint. coverage has taken note mistakes but he was such a courageous moral leader and a symbol the coverage can barely convey his gacy. what struckou most about the continuing coverage leading up to this? >> it was refreshing we live in an age where everyone prides himself on scoring points for one side or another and the media is increasingly partisan and polarized and it was nice to see a story where new york post and "new york times" and mother jones believed the world left one of the greatest men ever. >> this is legitimate debate about apartheid in the 80's but there is an absence of cynicism and snarking and everyone feeling like we have witnessed the passing of a guy who spent 27 years in prison and came out to be a tremendous leader. >> even on twitter, we are not used to us, we have forgotten when there was no snark and

quote have a conversation and say we are sad, he was great person and it was refreshing to see that. not just the old coverage dusted off like the interview with dick cheney from 2000 where he said he did not regret the vote calling him a terrorist but even people like dick clean can say, we lost a great man is a great story. >> still to come, the come unfortunate -- columnist is fighting back about releasing t"

headquarters. now back to howie and media buzz here on fox. glenn greenwald has been a lightning rod for controversy since he obtained those secret nsa documents from edward snowden. he's backing a media company and running into harsh criticism from those who believe he's

unfairly profiting from his access to snowden. joining us is glenn greenwald. respond to your critics you retrieved this huge trove of documents and privatizing them by selling home to a rich guy. >> that's completely idiotic. the way journalism works sources come to journalists they trust. you have an agreement how you report it. in order to do adversarial journalism you need editor, technology and other tools that let you do journalism. in order to create a new media organization devoted to adrsarial journalism we sought funding from someone who sought

independence in journalism. >> are you guaranteed independence? how free will you be to take on anybody maybe even including interest contrary to his? >> the essence of the new organization is that journalism is not journalism if it's not independent. people whose hiring we announced and whose hiring we will continue announce including me have long histories of demanding independence as the central plank in your arrangement with any media outlet. the minute anybody tried to interfere in the journalism that we were doing for ideological reasons or financial reasons is the minute we leave. everyone knows that and that's the key to what we're building is independence in journalism. >> with this profiteering

argument would exist? >> yeah. look i think that when you work at the "the washington post" which viewed as part of official washington you get shielded from those kind of questions. it's true that we are invested in a new organization but jeff bezos as you just pointed out bought "the washington post" not that long ago for $250 llion, a newspaper that does carry the stories of top secret nsa documents that he has or the "new york times" has tens of thousands of nsa documents from mr. snown as does "the guardian" and also privately owned. what you're seeing is a double standard if you're part of official washington certain rules apply to you and if not other rules do and that's become rather clear. >> for those who think you're more liberal activist or liberal

crusader than journalist they can point to this -- you seem to delight in taking a confrontational approach. for instance rolling stone interview you recently said about your new site, we'll do the journalism and then it will be like okay government come get us. is that your approach? >> yeah. absolutely. i think the role of journalists, the reason there's a free press is because the federal government is a massive institution as are large corporations and they need checks and accountability. the way you get that is not by journalists that serve the federal government but ones that are adversarial to it. one of the big problems in the world of journalism newspapers remember financially struggling and they fear having the government prosecute them or sue them or have large corporations sue them because they don't have the financial wherewithal to defend themselves against those actions. because we're a well funded organizations we need not fear that.

we are willing to do the kind of journalism we need to do against the government. >> that's an interesting phrase yo used journalist who serve the federal government. you have been quite critical of pundit, particularly many inside here in the beltway about what they had to say about you. david gregory asked you whether you should be prosecuted for publishing some of these nsa documents. talk a little bit about your detractors in the media world. >> i think if you look at a lot of establishment journalists and a lot of establishment journalism, what you find it's grounded primarily in doing one thing which is going to people in government, government officials and then printing what it is that they say. often anonymously. the whole narrative of how news is delivered to americans is typically shaped by the government sources with whom journalists inside the beltway are extremely close. we saw thatn the run up to the iraq where you and others have

pointed out the large newspapers were sheic to claims of government officials. you see it in the coverage of the obama administration where newspapers and media outlets repeat what the government says without any investigation. that's what i mean by servitude to the government. >> i would argue with you all the time and there are plenty of examples of good aggressive reporting. you said, obviously the rancid accusation that paid investigative journalism is tantamount to the buying and selling of government secrets. do you think your critics want you prosecuted? >> sure. i mean some of my critics have called on me to be prosecuted for the crime of doing journalism, for the crime of informing my fellow citizens and

readers about what the united states government is doing to their privacy almost entirely in the dark. the idea that somehow when you're a journist and you work for a newspaper that pays you for the articles you write is a way of trying to create a theory that justifies the prosecution of journalists. if that's a theory that somebody embraces it means investigative journalism which is about uncovering those thing that people with political and economic power do that they want to keep hidden cannot exist unless you do it for free. and almost no investigative journalists do that. that's why any kind of calls to prosecute journalists or read their e-mails is so dangerous let alone calls to prosecute journalists for reporting on what the government does. >> all right. we'll keep an eyen your new venture. glenn greenwald thanks very much in joining us from rio.

>> a look how the president bush white house dealt wi

it was with a two term presidency packed with drama but how much did the press know what george w. bush and dick cheney were doing behind-the-scenes.

peter baker is the author of "days of fire, bush and cheney in the white house" and i spoke to him earlier here in studio 1. welcome. was your portrait of dick cheney in this book different than the public image he had for eight years? >> i think it is. the public image was cartoonish at times. two dimensional. he was a puppet master. the sinister force running things. like all myths there was some truth. he was an influential vice president. very powerful, no doubt tarynly years. it's a relationship that was much more dynamic and changed over time. >> it sounds like although you've been too polite to say so an indictment of the media if the image of the vice president of the united states was cartoonish and two dimensional. >> that's the nature of media today to some extent. you take a reality and exaggerate and then it gets to late night circuit where it becomes further exaggerated and becomes a larger societal --

>> i'm sure our vwers would say the press was biassed against cheney. they didn't like his hawkish foreign policy and he was subject to more caricature than others. >> bill clinton probably feels he's been caricature. >> dick cheney didn't do aot of media interviews. he worried about looking like he was in charge by being too public and that fed themage in a counter intuitive way. >> why did he talk to you. he has his own book out about his history of heart problems. designee spent a good amount of time with me. very generous with his time. i hope they believe his time sets the record straight for history much he was undefensive, very calm, he's got his point of view and he feels firmly about it. >> looking back as a guy that

covered the bush administration and still covers the white house, how much did reporters know at the time about what was really going on behind closed doors or do we always have to wait for the books and for people to be out of office. >> my current theory is maybe we get 20%. >> 20%. >> of what's really getting on. we get large trust. elm missing a lot of what's going on. this book won't get to you 100% but maybe 30% or 40%. once people leave office they feel freer to talk and they one it's history >> you're at the white house every day a place under any administration is difficult to get information. and you are saying 80% of what's going on we don't know and therefore the publ doesn't know. >> that's probably right. most time i discovered when yo ask the white house is this going on and they deny it. not ly it going on it really was going on. >> wouldn't that be lying? >> technical term is spinning. >> fine line sometimes between spinning and lying.

since you cover the obama administration what is the difference between covering each of those governments in terms of the way you personally have dealt with them and the way the press has. >> between bush and obama. >> yes. >> i said this before i think republicans look at the press and assume that they are not on their side and act accordingly. that was the case in the bush white house. democrats look at the press and think they are on their side and the shocker is that's not true. >> more disappointment with you correspondents from the "new york times" where you write as they see as a tough piece or aggressive piece because they hope for better. >> that might be true. there's a case that there's a very aggressive push back at times from this white house when you write stories that they don't like. that's not unique to them but they are definitely assertive about it. not shy. that's fine. we're big boys and girls and we can push back ourselves. >> george w. bush has notably stayed quiet about his succesr

in his post-presidential years. dick cheney is out there criticizing president obama often in pretty strong terms. given your coverage of the two men does that surprise you that cheney continues to be now functioning as a pundit from the sidelines? >> he feels liberated. in some ways his argument with obama in public kind of is a proxy for his private argument with bush he had in the latter days ever their administration. >> which he was not free to make to journalists because he had to be loyal to number two. >> he resisted some of the changes that president bush was making in the second term. thought they were a bad idea. compromising on policies he favored. therefore, had to swallow it. by the time obama comes in he adopts a lot of what bush left behind but compromises left behind baked into the system before obama takes over are things cheney still doesn't agree with. when obama makes further modifications it's something

cheney will talk about loudly. >> thanks very much for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> after the break the pictures you send on this app quickly disappear but the company's value keeps growing. is snap check really worth

test test

snap chat sounded like a fad. teenagers that would send not safe pictures that would disappear after 1 seconds. >> it's become such a force that the company recently turned down $3 billion an offer from facebook. who tus down $3 billion.

>> that's a huge chunk of change. lets talk a little about what snap chat does. the whole idea of sending lewd pictures that vanished. i understand the privacy but it's a little creepy. >> self-destructive media, 13 to 23, the age of the folks who use it. that's appealing if you're going to be sending selfies or sexting which this can be used for. >> if you're 30, 40, 50, 60 you don't care. >> they are starting a market for over 40 people but really the young people who like this. >> $3 billion, i love the story one put it that the company is run by a couple young people out of their beach bungalow. >> obviously a gamble that in the future it's worth more than $3 billion but what if it's not. >> as of october 2012, they had not made any revenue. so they just hired someone to be

the coo from facebook. facebook tried to acquire them for $3 billion. now snap chat just raised $55 million more and they are valued at $2 billion. >> for a company that hasn't made a penny. >> as of october. >> it remind med of instagram. have you to have a gamblers heart to turn down that money and hope the tech bubble doesn't pop. look at these others in silicon valley, they fade, suddenly not the cool thing anymore. >> here is the thing. if they are right, then they are set forlized. so it is. they are set for life either way. >> it's a risk and gamble. i think in terms of revenue making ideas they have come up with two things. one is called snap kids where they cannot send the pictures but they can draw on them. the other called stories.

if you use stories, it means you can take 24 hours worth of your snap chats and supplies and put them all together and it exists for 24 hours. >> obviously the company must have grown to more than potentially ex-rated stuff. they are processing more than 350 million messages a day. it's become the hot new social network with a sexy twist. >> wouldn't you, if you were applying to colleges, and we've seen stories about how kids don't get into places because of lewd facebook and twitter comments that they have made. so this sort of ephemeral media is appealing to people like that. >> make it go away, no digital trail. facebook itself tried to start a similar trend called poke but no one is poking each other. cuomo versus cuomo. cnn anchor, his brother the governor.

a few top tweets on chris matthews interview with president obama. he should change the name of his show or be sued for false advertising. why does it have to be hardball or softball, interesting and honest what an interview should

be. no coincidence jeff besos was talking am zone drone delivery as the holiday season kicks off. as we pointed out, it will be reality sooner or later coming to your doorstep. after last week's train derailment in new york, governor andrew cuomo did a round of interviews with cnn anchor chris cuomo. >> obviously to those who don't know, we're family. we've been talking about this a lot. >> aather obvious disclosure didn't stop some media critics from accusing cuomo of a conflict. he said he'd never interview about politics or policy but on this breaking story the governor doesn't control the accident investigation. >> there's no question of conflict, because he's got a job to do, so do i. it was fact-based. it's something that didn't involve him in terms of the accountability. >> with the relationship hardly a state secret, i don't see a

problem with the interview. today's media culture makes too many incidents into pseudoscandals. finally ron burgundy has been making the rounds to promote the upcoming movie about the buffoonish anchor. he set in on a north dakota newscast and cnn. why are anchors playing long. >> you're a great success, you've done it all without a moustache. u're running around out there. i'll be honest with you, you look like a suck len baby lamb. >> all in good fun. let them buy air station rather than free from news organizations. >> come on, give me a break. where is your funny bone. he's poking fun with anchor. since when haven't we done entertainment. >> when you have a local newscast turning over the entire show to the clown. i like the anchorman movie, i hope the next one is good.

isn't it getting to be where everybody wants ron burgundy on the set. >> it's okay. carol simpson, a former abc anchor facebooked a picture of ron burgundy at her college where they changed the name of the college to the ron burgundy school of communication just for 24 hours. it's fun. what's wrong with you, you curmudgeon. >> you want to meet will ferrell. if he wants to come on the show, maybe i'll relax my standards. that is it for this edition of media buzz. continue the conversation with us on twitter. e-mail us at our home page fox news.com/media buzz. give us a like on facebook. we post comments and pictures there. from all of us on media buzz, thanks for wat >> it gois december 9th. a winter storm wallops the east coast dumping freezing rain and

snow on the roads. making the commute a nightmare. what you need to know straight ahead. >> the architect of obamacare says flooes nothing they can't fix. >> they are going to watch a pr campaign and it will tell a lot of people. >> will a reset button pure obamacare? >> like a hero movie caught on camera. a run away bus engulfed in flames. how the man behind the wheel got out alive and why he is hailed a hero. "fox & friends first" starts now.

♪>> it is a little rainy outside. christmas lights in the background. thank you so much for waking up to us. you are watching "fox & friends first". hope you had a greated weekend. >> thanks for start ing your da with us. a morning commute and extreme weather alert. americans waking up to this. iets and snowstorm is tumble will the northeast. one driver is dead and dozens are stranded for hours. check out the crazy white how the conditions at the lion's eagles game in philadelphia. look at that. >> in plano, texas look and listen to this. sheets of ice coming off of a